Slavery

[Mike_from_NJ]

Even if slaves were considered property it was obvously generally understoood they were people.

Can we agree that they can’t simultaneously be both? A property is something that gets handed down from person to person. A person is someone who has basic rights and whose needs should be considered. An object can be broken and rendered unusable. A person can’t also be property, and God says slaves are property.

i think the slave would know that when he decided to marry though.

If I find a desperate person I can get him or her to agree to all sorts of things, but that in no way makes it right. Such an agreement sounds more like a deal with the devil than one outlined by an all-loving deity.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What is the difference in being born into slavery and being born into a state? The state can demand labor from you. This labor demand could be mediated through money, but labor is required to get money. But it can also demand pure servile labor as in when it drafts you or otherwise compels you to work.

Also all are born into families. A parent can demand work from children.

So, if being born into forced labor is wrong then is the state and parenthood also wrong?

I completely agree with what bradski wrote in response to you on these statments, but I do have a few other points to make.

1. Being conscripted, getting assigned jury duty, paying taxes, and the like are all part of a social contract where in order to maintain that society its leaders can ask certain things of its people. If people think what is being asked is too much or being asked disproportionately than people have spoken out and, at times, risen up. It’s not perfect, but it’s not in the same ballpark as slavery.
2. Parents demand work from children to teach them responsibility and also to maintain a functioning household. If an such demands come close to the terrible abuses in the Bible that pro-slavery Christians allow for then the parents are punished.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If separating the slave from family is a great offense of biblical slavery, this blackmailing of the seventh year and new earmuffs, what has modernism developed?

Laboratory artificial methods of fertilization upheld as creating new freedoms is separating children from natural parents even before a new person is formed. Then this “property” is forced to integrate to a false mother into whom this new life is kidnapped from a true mother. What is chattel slavery in relation to this abomination and forced slavery before even the visible characteristics of individuality are fomed?

Modernism is the cruelest of masters that has ever lorded over mankind.

Are you equating someone who was born of invitro fertalization with someone who was purchase from one’s native land never to see one’s family again then regularly and severely beaten? It is possible to disagree with certain reproductive practices while at the same time not obfuscate the truth at slavery was one of the absolute worst things that man has ever done to man.

 

[exnihilo]

I completely agree with what bradski wrote in response to you on these statments, but I do have a few other points to make.

1. Being conscripted, getting assigned jury duty, paying taxes, and the like are all part of a social contract where in order to maintain that society its leaders can ask certain things of its people. If people think what is being asked is too much or being asked disproportionately than people have spoken out and, at times, risen up. It’s not perfect, but it’s not in the same ballpark as slavery.
2. Parents demand work from children to teach them responsibility and also to maintain a functioning household. If an such demands come close to the terrible abuses in the Bible that pro-slavery Christians allow for then the parents are punished.

1. Social contract? I made no contract with anyone. This is imposed on you against your will. You are just saying that communal slavery is fine, but individual slavery is not. I could just as easily say if slavers think they are being asked too much they can rise up and revolt. Why is communal slavery acceptable but individual slavery is not?
2. So having a desire to instruct or a need for order are sufficient to justify slavery? Abuses aren’t the issue. Abuse of slaves no more makes slavery wrong than abuse of children makes parenthood wrong. The thing must be intrinsically wrong. I doubt you’d say slavery is good even if not abusive so it really isn’t relevant.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

1. Social contract? I made no contract with anyone. This is imposed on you against your will. You are just saying that communal slavery is fine, but individual slavery is not. I could just as easily say if slavers think they are being asked too much they can rise up and revolt. Why is communal slavery acceptable but individual slavery is not?

I find it strange to have to outright say this, but not everything that is imposed on a person is slavery. This is nowhere near this.

1. So having a desire to instruct or a need for order are sufficient to justify slavery? Abuses aren’t the issue. Abuse of slaves no more makes slavery wrong than abuse of children makes parenthood wrong. The thing must be intrinsically wrong. I doubt you’d say slavery is good even if not abusive so it really isn’t relevant.

Well first off, by your definition a stop sign is slavery. Slavery in and of itself is abuse. It restricts liberty even without the physical and mental abuse God lovingly layed out. You claim there is good slavery, and there simply isn’t. You say abusing children doesn’t make parenthood wrong, but that’s not analagous to slavery. The reason is there is a relationship between a worker and the person he works for (employee/employer) that unlike slavery is not abusive. A child/parent relationship is usually not abusive. Slave/slaveholder is always abusive. Yahweh’s version of slavery is quite abusive.

 

[exnihilo]

I find it strange to have to outright say this, but not everything that is imposed on a person is slavery. This is nowhere near this.

Are you saying slavery is acceptable so long as you don’t beat your slave? You are taking the worst abuses of slavery and saying that is what makes it wrong. But surely it must be wrong regardless of abuse?

Well first off, by your definition a stop sign is slavery. Slavery in and of itself is abuse. It restricts liberty even without the physical and mental abuse God lovingly layed out. You claim there is good slavery, and there simply isn’t. You say abusing children doesn’t make parenthood wrong, but that’s not analagous to slavery. The reason is there is a relationship between a worker and the person he works for (employee/employer) that unlike slavery is not abusive. A child/parent relationship is usually not abusive. Slave/slaveholder is always abusive. Yahweh’s version of slavery is quite abusive.

I’m not saying there is good slavery. What I’ve said is that if forcing people to work is wrong then lots of things we generally accept are wrong. If they aren’t wrong then we can next ask under what circumstances is it right. But in all circumstances the person being forced to work isn’t, by nature of it being forced, offering his consent.

You keep coming back to physical punishment as being what makes slavery wrong. But if so then governments and parents are also wrong as they can abuse those under their care. So it can’t be the abuses that make it wrong since we could at least imagine a perfect world without abuses. If you are saying slavery is abusive by nature (here not meaning physically but abusive of the dignity or rights of man) I’d be interested in your argument for that.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Are you saying slavery is acceptable so long as you don’t beat your slave? You are taking the worst abuses of slavery and saying that is what makes it wrong. But surely it must be wrong regardless of abuse?

I literally minutes ago in a post that you quoted said "Slavery in and of itself is abuse. It restricts liberty even without the physical and mental abuse God lovingly layed out."

I’m not saying there is good slavery. What I’ve said is that if forcing people to work is wrong then lots of things we generally accept are wrong. If they aren’t wrong then we can next ask under what circumstances is it right. But in all circumstances the person being forced to work isn’t, by nature of it being forced, offering his consent.

And I’ve explained that a parent forcing his or her child to do chores is not slavery. It is reasonable for children to learn responsibility and help maintain a household. No ridiculous equivocation will pair the two.

You keep coming back to physical punishment as being what makes slavery wrong.

Again I literally minutes ago in a post that you quoted said "Slavery in and of itself is abuse. It restricts liberty even without the physical and mental abuse God lovingly layed out."

But if so then governments and parents are also wrong as they can abuse those under their care. So it can’t be the abuses that make it wrong since we could at least imagine a perfect world without abuses. If you are saying slavery is abusive by nature (here not meaning physically but abusive of the dignity or rights of man) I’d be interested in your argument for that.

It is abuses that are wrong. Parents can abuse their children in multiple ways beyond physical abuse. My dad spent many years working for the Division of Youth and Family Services covering such abuses.

So let me be perfectly clear: Parents can make their children do work, but there reaches a point where it reaches abuse. Just as a person working for another can be abused by that person – the most basic being taking a person from their home, separating them from their family, and restricting their movement and liberty.

 

[exnihilo]

I literally minutes ago in a post that you quoted said "Slavery in and of itself is abuse. It restricts liberty even without the physical and mental abuse God lovingly layed out."

OK, restricting liberty is what makes slavery wrong? Now, I assume you don’t think man should have complete liberty. What is it that justifies some people restricting the liberty of others? For instance a parent, a court, a draft board etc? How is it that some people get to circumscribe the liberty of others?

 

[Bradski]

OK, restricting liberty is what makes slavery wrong? Now, I assume you don’t think man should have complete liberty. What is it that justifies some people restricting the liberty of others? For instance a parent, a court, a draft board etc? How is it that some people get to circumscribe the liberty of others?

To butt in here, it might be worthwhile, on the assumption that you believe slavery to be wrong, exactly what you think makes it wrong.

 

[Lucretius]

Today I read in the Catechism where it clearly declares that slavery, the owning of one human person by another, is gravely wrong and an insult to human dignity.

The Catechism condemns owning and selling a person as wrong when it causes the slave to be treated as less than a person, like, say, as a domesticated animal, through violence. It actually doesn’t say that merely owning or even selling a person is inherently wrong, interestingly enough.

I recommend everyone look at this insightful article: thomism.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/the-cheap-grace-of-condemning-slavery/

Christi pax.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

OK, restricting liberty is what makes slavery wrong? Now, I assume you don’t think man should have complete liberty. What is it that justifies some people restricting the liberty of others? For instance a parent, a court, a draft board etc? How is it that some people get to circumscribe the liberty of others?

We as a people realize that those who have not reached the age of maturity may not be fully capable to thoughtfully be a member of society, and in much the same vein we say that adults have certain responsibilites along with rights and it takes time for those underage to be taught these responsibilites. These are two main reasons why parents can limit the liberty of children until they reach adulthood.

If a society is threatened by outside forces most societies say draft boards are an unfortunate necessity to maintain that society. That means the limitation of liberties for the soldiers occurs for the length of time that person serves. That is not to say that there have not been times when draft boards or armies haven’t at times overstepped their bounds. Also the specifics for one society may differ greatly from another (e.g. mandatory service in Israel versus current-day voluntary service in the United States).

When it comes to employer-employee relationships, we have numereous protections in place to keep employees from being abused like in a master-slave relationship. People can’t be forced to work for a particular private company. At the same time employers have legal protections if an employee does or is doing something that could cause harm to the company. These protections allow for legal termination of employment and even financial recompense in certain situations. Whatever limits both employer and employee have they are for the protection of people not the exploitation of them.

There are limitations of liberty in our private lives. In general (although not exclusively) these limitations are based on how one’s liberty impacts that of another’s liberty. We can worship as we choose, but we are not allowed to discriminate in home selling based on that religious choice. We can protest a company, but we can’t bomb a building owned by that company. There are nuances to these things, but all in all it’s pretty straigthforward.

Now that I’ve answered these questions I hope some of you all would be willing to answer a few mine that I’ve asked thus far that have been brushed over:

1. Would you agree that the Hebrews had not owned slaves for 400+ years when God was said to tell them how to obtain and use slaves?
2. Would you agree that God had his people do things other cultures didn’t, and not do things other cultures did?
3. Would you agree that whether other neighboring nations had slaves is simply not an excuse for the Hebrews to own them (especially because he outright said not to follow the practices of those nations and also because of questions 1 and 2)?
4. Would you agree that God can see all things that have been, are, and will be, as well as those things that could ever possibly be?
5. Would you agree that God gave his people numerous instructions on how to operate a society, including some things in very specific detail?
6. Would you agree that considering questions 4 and 5 that God could have spelled out a society for his people that didn’t include slavery?
7. Would you agree that beating slaves is wrong?
8. Would you agree that beating slaves so badly that they wither and die a day or two later is wrong?
9. Would you agree that if God tells someone that if they do something and that there will be no punishment that God doesn’t consider it a sin?
10. Would you agree that considering questions 7, 8, 9 that God doesn’t consider fatal beatings of a slave where the victim doesn’t die the same day is not a sin?
11. Would you agree that despite question 10 that beating someone to death is wrong and should be a sin?
12. When was God planning to say slavery was wrong? How many thousands of years longer were we expected to wait?
    13, If Christianity had been without slavery, and a person of another faith tried to explain why his or her deity set out a blueprint of a society endorsing slavery, would you buy what that person was trying to sell?

 

[b_ulmen]

I’ve read every post in this thread and must say I am a little disappointed in how much has been said with very little progress in reaching an end. mike from nj has laid out a very good argument for God supporting slavery, but all the attempts to refute it have veered off course into irrelevant rabbit holes and none have directly addressed the points he raised. I would expect that with the Catholic-smart forum masters and clergy on this opinion board that there would be some sort of direct answers to the questions he raised.

I trust the silence of the last 2 days indicates that the experienced Catholic Apologists I’ve come to enjoy reading are preparing their learned response. This is a really good discussion and it pains me to see it stop like the Soporanos’ finale.

 

[mkoopman]

Are you saying that the positions of people like myself and others on the thread who state that slavery is purely bad is the same position that allows slavery to exist today? …

I’m not asking that God intercede in an additional supernatural way, just that when he did speak to his people that he didn’t encourage them to commit terrible, cruel acts. He called evil good – and never recanted. It’s that reason that pro-slavery Christians have to do backflips to try and defend him.

I was not speaking of positions. Do I look like Frederick Douglass to you?

I was speaking to what Scripture and the Prophets speak to us as Baptized and catechized children of God. What rules God had to give to the pagan Israelites is not what is primary to the Word of God. An obstinate heart turned towards God will only produce a stiff neck.

What is the modern infant mortality rate? Do you ignore all those killed by procured abortion? These are the lies, the poison one should tell Satan to drink himself, that pervert the perspective of modern man thinking himself a superior species, or at least a superior specimen. Who are these supermen?

Do you see all of the Israelis as greater persons than the gentile races? The faith of Abraham the courage and righteousness of Moses the zealous love of Elijah are why God chose this people. Chosen but simple pagan minds like other tribal peoples. I conclude your entire premise about God’s laws on slavery are biased by a prejudicial view and a materialistic premise, godlessness. The very same godlessness of the chosen people who were miraculously rescued.

Why do you not ask God to move in miraculous ways? Did you ignore my pointer to today’s evil thieves promoting human trafficking? Why is your craw stuck on somewhat obscure passages made to a pagan desert tribe and not on pragmatic results for today’s suffering humanity? Pray God to convert these evil hearts by his grace.

Have I clarified my position on what I see as, essentially, your relevant prognosis as bad comedy? Well fitted to Caligula.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I was not speaking of positions. Do I look like Frederick Douglass to you?

I was speaking to what Scripture and the Prophets speak to us as Baptized and catechized children of God. What rules God had to give to the pagan Israelites is not what is primary to the Word of God. An obstinate heart turned towards God will only produce a stiff neck.

I’ve covered this already. God gave numerous instructions to his people as to how to run their society. These included things unique to that nation. He put his foot down on honoring the Sabbath, on killing, on circumcision, on worshipping false idols, on dozens of things. It’s not even that slavery is conspicuously absent, but that God (by giving detailed instructions on slavery) purposely pushed his people away from a slavery-free society that so many allege that he really wanted (despite him not saying a word to that effect).

As I mentioned we don’t tell people that bad is good because there is a chance people won’t listen. In fact, Christianity is based off of the idea that no ordinary man will be able to be sinless and thus would require belief in Jesus. At least when a person sins he knows it’s a sin. If a person follows God’s rules for slavery he or she would be sinning today but not if he or she did it then. That’s odd.

What is the modern infant mortality rate? Do you ignore all those killed by procured abortion?

If a person is against A, that doesn’t mean that person isn’t also against B, C, D, etc.

If I speak out against slavery (both ancient and modern day) that doesn’t mean I don’t concern myself with other issues that affect people. And just so you know, I’m acutely aware of the modern infant mortality rate and the steps the medical profession has taken to reduce it. I can’t heap enough praise at the amazing people at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for saving a family member of mine at birth and beyond.

These are the lies, the poison one should tell Satan to drink himself, that pervert the perspective of modern man thinking himself a superior species, or at least a superior specimen. Who are these supermen?

Saying slavery is wrong and inexcusable is not a plot from Satan. As the OP mentioned the Catechism itself has made it a point to say as much. Catholics on this thread have asked for direct responses on the matter. This is a point of legitimate concern for believers and non-believers alike.

It’s not a conspiracy by the dark one. If one keeps one’s head buried long enough everything starts to taste like sand.

Do you see all of the Israelis as greater persons than the gentile races? The faith of Abraham the courage and righteousness of Moses the zealous love of Elijah are why God chose this people. Chosen but simple pagan minds like other tribal peoples. I conclude your entire premise about God’s laws on slavery are biased by a prejudicial view and a materialistic premise, godlessness. The very same godlessness of the chosen people who were miraculously rescued.

First of all, it seems strange to call the Hebrew people pagans, since the term describes those not of an Abrahamic faith. Next, I’ve listed very specific passages in the Bible which show God’s endorsement of slavery. Can you give any specific responses instead of attacking my character based on my atheism?

Why do you not ask God to move in miraculous ways? Did you ignore my pointer to today’s evil thieves promoting human trafficking?

A person’s morality isn’t based on his or her ability to perform miracles. It’s based on what he or she says and does. We can comment on a person’s morality and on a deity’s morality.

Why is your craw stuck on somewhat obscure passages made to a pagan desert tribe and not on pragmatic results for today’s suffering humanity? Pray God to convert these evil hearts by his grace.

“Obscure passages”? As I noted earlier in the thread all of the instructions from Exodus 21 regarding slavery is in the same monologue from God where he first gave The Ten Commandments as well as numerous points on tort law that shaped the chosen people. It’s these passages that slaveowners pointed to repeatedly in defense of what they were doing.

Non-Christians are told to look toward the Bible and God’s words as a source of morality. You can’t say to ignore that directive when multiple passages demand a response.

Have I clarified my position on what I see as, essentially, your relevant prognosis as bad comedy? Well fitted to Caligula.

Unfortunately, no. Vague and indirect are not strong enough words.

 

[Lucretius]

Mike from NJ,

I haven’t gone through the entire thread yet, but have you given an account of what slavery actually is and why it is inherently wrong?

From what I’ve read, you seem to object more to things like the morality of harsh punishments rather than slavery per se.

Christi pax.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike from NJ,

I haven’t gone through the entire thread yet, but have you given an account of what slavery actually is and why it is inherently wrong?

From what I’ve read, you seem to object more to things like the morality of harsh punishments rather than slavery per se.

Christi pax.

And that’s why we don’t work with limited information. I’ve talked about the various problems with slavery, including why it’s inherently wrong.

 

[e_c]

And that’s why we don’t work with limited information. I’ve talked about the various problems with slavery, including why it’s inherently wrong.

There are many kinds of slavery. I’m unconvinced you have shown them all to be repugnant to common intuition, let alone “intrinsically evil.”

Do you realize that the Israelites would have taken slaves anyway? If they will go after the Ashera and Baal, surely they would imitate the institution of forced labor…

Also, the Israelites were pretty much in a perpetual state of emergency… Mostly due to being in a nearly constantly active war zone. Couldn’t this be relevant?

How about a different social structure itself being integral to the administration of justice… Think of the paterfamilias, for example. Don’t you think something like this could also be relevant, especially given the STILL wild emphasis on family in the Middle East (if you have been, you might know what I mean)?

I don’t think that you have put near enough work into thinking of all of the relevant distinctions and particular circumstances to warrant the confidence you seem to have.

Just a thought. Going back to watching now.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There are many kinds of slavery. I’m unconvinced you have shown them all to be repugnant to common intuition, let alone “intrinsically evil.”

We’ve been over this. I’ve shown the many similarities between slavery as described in the Bible and more modern slavery. The idea of chattel slavery versus Biblical slavery is a fiction touted by pro-slavery Christians that is never proven or even demonstrated.

Do you realize that the Israelites would have taken slaves anyway? If they will go after the Ashera and Baal, surely they would imitate the institution of forced labor…

We’ve been through this as well. We don’t tell people that it’s ok to wrong if we think some of them will do it anyway. Some people are going to murder, or rape, or steal; but we tell them it’s wrong because we want to encourage that which is right.

Also, the Israelites were pretty much in a perpetual state of emergency… Mostly due to being in a nearly constantly active war zone. Couldn’t this be relevant?

There is no delineation in the Bible as to which types of slaves can be beaten to death with a rod. The Bible says his people can purchase slaves, which means they were not combatants against his people.

How about a different social structure itself being integral to the administration of justice… Think of the paterfamilias, for example. Don’t you think something like this could also be relevant, especially given the STILL wild emphasis on family in the Middle East (if you have been, you might know what I mean)?

I’ve talked at length about God both setting up the social structure of the Hebrews as well as the fact that God would know of every possible social structure past, present, future, real or imagined. Lack of knowledge of a slaveless society is not a consideration when questioning why God gave specific instructions on allowing then increasing the practice of slavery among his people.

Paterfamilias is not in any way relevant to slavery. There have been many cultures for some time (even today) where the oldest male is the head of the household – all without a whiff of slavery. There’s no correlation between the two concepts.

I don’t think that you have put near enough work into thinking of all of the relevant distinctions and particular circumstances to warrant the confidence you seem to have.

Personally, I’ve put in a great deal of work on this matter. I’ve made specific claims and organized a series of points defending my position. The responses to what I’ve given have been vague and nebulous, unwilling or unable to address those very same points.

Just a thought. Going back to watching now.

If you have another thought, perhaps you’d like to tackle that series of questions I gave a few posts ago. I think it will truly get to the heart of the matter and will be far more concrete than a series of potshots.

 

[Lucretius]

Calling someone property*quite literally means they are not considered a person.

As others have pointed out, there is a difference between being treated as a non-person, and being treated as a member of a lower class.

For example, ExNihilo pointed out that we treat children like the “property” of their parents in our society: sure, we use the different words like “guardianship,” but the underlying reality is still the same, and sure, we recognize certain rights of theirs apart from and against their parents, but so did Israel regarding their slaves.

Now, I think these kind of questions are limited in value here. The word “slave” is far too vague, and contains too much pathetic power.

I think we would advance the discussion better if we discussed things like, the morality of harsh punishments, the rights and duties of women, as well as the rights and duties of the laborer, and, of course, the justice of clearly defined and enforced social heirarchies (what is the difference between the slave and the serf?). After all, almost all of your objections concern these issues first and foremost: your objections to slavery under Mosaic Law stem from your views regarding these issues, I think.

I also think we should look into how these Mosaic Laws were observed in practical everyday experience.

We should also try to understand where the institution of slavery came from. We moderns tend to think that slavery was a result of some powerful people just walking into town and grabbing people because they want cheap labor (mainly because that’s what the colonial powers did), and there is truth to this, but, in reality, slavery is also largely a compromise between killing all of your POWs, and letting them kill you (which is why, say, Popes allowed Spain to take Muslim slaves). Even the 13th Amendment allows slavery as punishment (and therefore doesn’t condemn slavery as inherently wrong). What this means is that slavery in the ancient world should be understood less as a social construction, and more like a fact of life that societies had to deal with somehow.

This might be much of the reason why Christ doesn’t seem to address it, and why St. Paul is more concerned with the acceptance of slaves as full Christians rather than the full destruction of the institution. St. Ireanaus makes arguments along the lines that destroying slavery in his time would cause society itself to collapse. I expect that Moses also understood this.

I’ve said it earlier and I’ll say it again: Apologists are the first to denounce moral relativism and the first to employ it in an argument.

There are dimensions of morality that are circumstantial. Morality is both absolute and relative, depending on whatever we are focused on. Not every thing is inherently wrong, but a thing can be wrong due to the situation.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

Here’s a reason God might have tolerated slavery: God wanted Israel to always know what it is truly like to be a slave so that they can fully understand what He means when He proclaims the First Commandment: I am the LORD your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Think about it: people are much more likely to miss the gravity of something they’ve only heard about. I know I’m like that.

Christi pax.